Question Starfield CPU Benchmark ?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
TheDecoy

TheDecoy

Aug 25, 2023
9
0
10
Hi there,

I just bought an Ryzen 7 7800X3D CPU and this benchmark troubles me.

Bethesda has a deal with AMD, but still the Intel CPUs are outperforming the AMD CPUs by far. I know there are many benchmarks where the AMD CPU shine, but still it's making me nervous. I don't mind if this is true only for a single game, but it makes me question my CPU decision. I could still exchange my PC, I am for being somewhat futureproof.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks
 
TheDecoy said:
Hi there,

I just bought an Ryzen 7 7800X3D CPU and this benchmark troubles me.

Bethesda has a deal with AMD, but still the Intel CPUs are outperforming the AMD CPUs by far. I know there are many benchmarks where the AMD CPU shine, but still it's making me nervous. I don't mind if this is true only for a single game, but it makes me question my CPU decision. I could still exchange my PC, I am for being somewhat futureproof.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks
Click to expand...
10 FPS here and there in a specific game is not "outperforming by far" buy any means even if real.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Phaaze88
TheDecoy said:
It makes at least a noticeable difference. Just want to be sure I am buying the right CPU.
Click to expand...
They didn't even use the recommended memory speed for AMD. They tested it with DDR5 5200 (AMD recommends ddr5-6000) and used faster RAM for the intel chips. Got to pay attention to the details. Stick to more reputable sites like GN or HUB where there's much less of an agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CountMike
johnnyboy5520 said:
They didn't even use the recommended memory speed for AMD. They tested it with DDR5 5200 (AMD recommends ddr5-6000) and used faster RAM for the intel chips. Got to pay attention to the details. Stick to more reputable sites like GN or HUB where there's much less of an agenda.
Click to expand...
HUB still showed Intel CPU's performing better. Those were tests at 1080p, where the CPU (usually) plays a more significant role but then I didn't look at the setups much beyond that. I wouldn't pay it much attention either because this game is supposed to be GPU limited for it's rich graphics, and well optimized for AMD's GPU's at release to show it all in it's full glory without waiting for fixes and patches. That's what really matters at 1440p in a triple-A game that doesn't benefit from high FPS anyway. If it did pump out high FPS I'd rig it to stay low low in order to not burn out expensive hardware early.

I'm mostly trying to decide whether it's worth the $70US price, and whether it descends into a resource hunting grind through boringly repetitive scenes and challenges to do anything more interesting like NoManSky did.
 
Last edited:
Mostly do you actually plan to play at 1080p. The key reason you see 1080p cpu benchmarks is above that most games are gpu bound and the cpu benchmarks pretty much server no purpose. Almost nobody that can afford expensive CPU and video cards is going to run at 1080p.

Your CPU can't be on the top for every game. It wins a lot of them but there are others where brute force cpu clock rates and core counts will win. This game maybe one of those. The 7800x3d is cheaper and is easier to cool than stuff like 13900k.

It all depends on what game you really plan to play the most. Some new game might come out and favor the x3d chips again, there are huge number the 7800x3d is best but it doesn't really matter if you do not plan to play those.

This game runs poorly even with the best equipment. Maybe they will patch something in the upcoming weeks but it really seems they said screw the pc guys we are going to tune it for consoles.
 
hmm installed it hour ago and so far im not dropping below 60fps, cpu usage just around 30-40%, around 60-65watts, usualy games draws bout 50watts, so nothing drastic
i do have vsync60 lock, but its stable 60 and so far not a single traversal stutter
gpu usage seems to be fine aswell 80-140watts 1440p/high fsr2 65% render, at native no fsr/cas 160-220w, had small drop in combat to 55fps without fsr
so far looks fine
 
drea.drechsler said:
Do we "both"? I don't LOL

So...40-50fps, assuming the 1% lows aren't killers, is really quite adequate on most any triple-A title IMO.
Click to expand...
had some time to check atlantis at different mem clocks
cpu used R7 3800X
3600 16-15-15-32-48 (custom timings)
~65 fps walking nearby lots of npcs
~75 fps when nobody around
doesnt drop below 60 during traversal loading

3200 14-14-14-28-42 (xmp timings)
~60 fps walking nearby lots of npcs
~70 fps when nobody around
it does drop below 60 fps during traversal loading...so min fps kinda affected a bit, but its playable

2666 14-14-14-28-42 (xmp timings)
~55fps walking nearby lots of npcs
~65fps when nobody around
drops to 40s fps when moving around (traversal stutter)

for those who wonder what is atlantis, its a city, which is used in benchmarks, its both GPU and CPU taxing, so thats the bottom fps you can get from this game
when you go to building, cpu usage will drop by quite a bit and fps will shout out 120fps+, similary some other planets which are mostly barren lands with few outposts here and theer also low cpu usage
gpu usage is somewhat everywhere same to some degree, atlantis is just more CPU heavy then other areas
 
Last edited:
kerberos_20 said:
had some time to check atlantis at different mem clocks
cpu used R7 3800X
3600 16-15-15-32-48 (custom timings)
~65 fps walking nearby lots of npcs
~75 fps when nobody around
doesnt drop below 60 during traversal loading

3200 14-14-14-28-42 (xmp timings)
~60 fps walking nearby lots of npcs
~70 fps when nobody around
it does drop below 60 fps during traversal loading...so min fps kinda affected a bit, but its playable

2666 14-14-14-28-42 (xmp timings)
~55fps walking nearby lots of npcs
~65fps when nobody around
drops to 40s fps when moving around (traversal stutter)

for those who wonder what is atlantis, its a city, which is used in benchmarks, its both GPU and CPU taxing, so thats the bottom fps you can get from this game
when you go to building, cpu usage will drop by quite a bit and fps will shout out 120fps+, similary some other planets which are mostly barren lands with few outposts here and theer also low cpu usage
gpu usage is somewhat everywhere same to some degree, atlantis is just more CPU heavy then other areas
Click to expand...
That shows the game is very much sensitive to memory speed suggesting HUB definitely screwed up with an unfair comparison by using a slow memory for AMD against high(er) speed for Intel in comparisons.

But does seems perfectly playable on Zen 2, I'd like to see that same test on a Zen+ CPU. Would also be nice if you could disable 2 cores so we could see how it performs on a 6 core CPU, for those with Ryzen 5 Zen 2 CPU's.

It is also important to note that your 6800XT (system in your sig) is a very much a high-end GPU.
 
Last edited:
drea.drechsler said:
But does seems perfectly playable on Zen 2, I'd like to see that same test on a Zen+ CPU. Would also be nice if you could disable 2 cores so we could see how it performs on a 6 core CPU, for those with Ryzen 5 Zen 2 CPU's.
Click to expand...
gamernexus did already cpu bench with zen+, zen2, zen3
https://imgur.com/JiO0uIS
View: https://imgur.com/JiO0uIS

i see no diff between 6c/12t and 8c/16t (just higher clock/ipc gain diff)
mine cpu in atlantis runs around 60-70% util (+-75watts), outside of atlantis/indoors its 55w cpu load

drea.drechsler said:
It is also important to note that your 6800XT (system in your sig) is a very much a high-end GPU.
Click to expand...
its 6800 non XT, but ye 16gigs helps, 1440p/high = 13,5GB vram usage 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom